Luedtke v. State
| Decision Date | 04 March 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D06-4580.,2D06-4580. |
| Citation | 6 So.3d 653 |
| Parties | Randal J. LUEDTKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Randal J. Luedtke appeals his judgment and sentence, challenging the court's denial of his presentence motion to withdraw plea. We agree with Mr. Luedtke that his trial counsel's incorrect advice regarding possible civil commitment consequences under the Jimmy Ryce Act1 constituted good cause sufficient to permit Mr. Luedtke to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing. We accordingly reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In February 2006, the State filed an amended information charging Mr. Luedtke with one count of sexual battery under section 794.011(5), Florida Statutes (2004). Mr. Luedtke entered a negotiated plea of no contest to the charge. The plea agreement called for a downward departure sentence of six years' imprisonment, which was scheduled to be imposed at a sentencing hearing approximately one month after the plea hearing.
During the plea colloquy, the court, in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(9), asked Mr. Luedtke whether he understood that the Jimmy Ryce Act provides for evaluation and involuntary civil commitment of a person who has been convicted of a sexually motivated offense and who is found to be likely to commit a sexually motivated offense in the future. After the court's explanation, Mr. Luedtke provided no response. Mr. Luedtke's attorney then took a moment, off the record, apparently to clarify the matter with Mr. Luedtke. Mr. Luedtke then responded "[c]lear," and he confirmed to the court that he and his attorney had discussed the implications of the Jimmy Ryce Act. The court then accepted Mr. Luedtke's plea and granted Mr. Luedtke's request to defer sentencing to a later date.
Before sentencing, Mr. Luedtke obtained new counsel and moved to withdraw his plea under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(f). He claimed that his prior attorney had misadvised him about the consequences of the Jimmy Ryce Act. During an evidentiary hearing on the motion, Mr. Luedtke's prior attorney testified that he had advised Mr. Luedtke that the Jimmy Ryce Act probably would not apply to him. Mr. Luedtke also testified and recalled that his attorney told him not to worry about the Jimmy Ryce Act because he did not have any prior convictions. The trial court denied Mr. Luedtke's motion, reasoning that counsel's advice was reasonable and that if Mr. Luedtke were placed in Jimmy Ryce proceedings after completing his sentence, he could move to withdraw his plea at that time.
Under rule 3.170(f), the trial court may, in its discretion, and shall, on good cause, at any time before sentencing, permit a plea of guilty or no contest to be withdrawn. Where less than good cause is shown, the trial court's ruling will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Smith v. State, 840 So.2d 404, 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). If, however, there is a showing of good cause, the defendant shall be allowed to withdraw his plea as a matter of right. See id.; see also Wright v. State, 961 So.2d 1036, 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ().
Good cause to withdraw a plea has been found to exist "when the plea is 'infected by misapprehension, undue persuasion, ignorance, or was entered by one not competent to know its consequence or that it was otherwise involuntary, or that the ends of justice would be served by withdrawal of such plea.'" Johnson v State, 947 So.2d 1208, 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (quoting Onnestad v. State, 404 So.2d 403, 405 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)). Civil commitment of persons found to be sexual predators under the Jimmy Ryce Act is considered a collateral consequence of a plea to a qualifying offense. Watrous v. State, 793 So.2d 6, 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). It is well settled that affirmative misadvice regarding collateral consequences of a plea forms a basis for allowing a defendant to withdraw the plea. Id. at 11.
Section 394.912(9)(d), Florida Statutes (2004), of the Jimmy Ryce Act defines "sexually violent offense" as including a "[s]exual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sebulski v. Sec'y, Case No. 3:16-cv-831-J-34PDB
...at 1-15 (citing Graham v. State, 779 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Gray v. State, 754 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Luedtke v. State, 6 So. 3d 653 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Nicol v.State, 892 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Onnestad v. State, 404 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Robinson v. St......
-
Lehmkuhle v. State
...to withdraw a plea as a matter of right if good cause is shown. Robinson v. State, 761 So.2d 269 (Fla.1999); Luedtke v. State, 6 So.3d 653, 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). If less than good cause is shown, the court has the discretion to allow withdrawal of the plea. Taylor v. State, 870 So.2d 72 (......
-
Stewart v. State
...his ignorance of it does meet the ‘good cause’ test for a pre-sentence plea withdrawal." Id . at 1210 ; see also Luedtke v. State , 6 So. 3d 653, 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (stating that misadvice regarding the applicability of the Jimmy Ryce Act constituted good cause for a pre-sentence plea w......
-
Smith v. State
...to withdraw his plea, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw plea. See Luedtke v. State, 6 So.3d 653, 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“Under rule 3.170(f), the trial court may, in its discretion, and shall, on good cause, at any time before sentencing, permit......
-
Charging a crime, arraignment and pleas
...did apply. Held: Defendant was misadvised during the plea, the court errs in refusing to allow the plea to be withdrawn. Luedtke v. State, 6 So. 3d 653 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) Whether a plea was entered voluntarily can be raised on a 3.850 motion. Thus, defendant’s claim that his plea was not vo......